CHAPTER 2

CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON COMMUNICATION: VALUES

Dimensions of Culture'
How can we best describe cultural differences? Michael Hecht and his colleagues discuss six
cultural dimensions that have a large impact on communication practices: (1) power distance,
(2) individualism, (3) gender (which we call instrumental/ expressive orientation), (4)
uncertainty, (5) context dependence, and (6) immediacy. Hecht believes that we can
understand a culture by locating it on each of these dimensions.
Power Distance
The power-distance dimension differentiates cultures by how they distribute power and
prestige. In a high-power-distance culture, wealth and status are unequally distributed, and
decision making lies in the hands of the elite. In a low-power-distance society, status is less
marked, power is distributed more equally, and decision making is participatory. How is this
difference likely to affect communication? In high-power- distance countries, the
communication of respect and deference will be important, subordinates and superiors will
differ in their communication behaviors, and freedom of contact between social classes will
be limited. Rules will be set by those in power and accepted by those who are not. In contrast,
in low-power-distance countries, communication roles will be less marked; each person will
be given an equal voice, and rules will be mutually negotiated. According to G. Hofstede,
south Asian countries (like Singapore and the Philippines) and some South American
countries (like Brazil, Venezuela, and Colombia) have been classed as higher on the power-
distance dimension than European middle-class democracies (like Austria, Denmark, and the
Scandinavian countries). The United States is considered to be slightly lower than the median
on power distance.
Individualism
Countries also differ in the value they place on individualism/collectivism. Collectivist
countries emphasize what Stella Ting-Toomey calls a "we" identity; valuing shared interests,
harmony, and collective judgement. Individualist countries, on the other hand, place a
premium on an "I" identity, valuing personal identity, competition, and individual decision
making, North American and European countries (like the United States, Canada, and Great
Britain) are individualist, while many South American and Asian countries (like Venezuela,
Peru, Taiwan, and Thailand) stress collectivism. The individualist countries value freedom,
creativity, and economic incentive, but at the same time may inadvertently encourage
materialism, alienation, and ecological arrogance. As for communication style, collectivist try
to avoid conflict and, when this is impossible, use indirect styles of conflict resolution, while
individualists are more confrontational and direct.
Collectivists also try to discourage individual accomplishment. In distributing rewards they
are more likely to use an equality norm (where each member receives the same reward
regardless of input) than an equity norm (where distribution is based on individual merit); in
individualist countries the opposite is true. Because harmony is so important, collectivist
cultures value obedience, emphasize smooth intergroup relations, and stress politeness.
Family and interpersonal obligations are also important. As Ting- Toomey says, "To be
attracted to a member of a collectivistic culture means to take on additional responsibilities
and obligations toward the member's social networks." Instrumental/ Expressive Orientation
Hofstede devised a system for classifying countries as either "masculine" or "feminine" in
orientation. Because this division is based on the problematic assumption that there are
distinctively male and female modes of behavior and social relations, we prefer to label the
distinction as instrumental/ expressive orientation. Rather than referring to countries that
value strength, aggression, and competition as "masculine", and those that value compassion,
nurturance, and emotional expression as "feminine", we'll label the former "instrumental" and
the latter "expressive". Hofstede classes Japan, many of the central European countries, and
Britain, Ireland, and Australia in the first category, and the Scandinavian countries plus Chile,
Portugal, and Thailand in the second. Hecht also notes that in the "instrumental" cultures,
there tends to be a sharp division between the sexes in terms of power and expected
communication behaviors. As a result, women who express themselves assertively and men
who are emotionally expressive may have a difficult time communicating. Members of
instrumental cultures may be perceived as uncaring, cold, and aggressive, however, in
expressive countries. It isn't difficult to see how these kinds of differences can lead to serious
misunderstandings. Attitudes Toward Uncertainty
Hofstede also believes that countries differ in their attitude toward uncertainty or willingness
to take risks. Some countries value risk, change, and freedom of thought, while others value
stability, tradition, and authority. Among the countries that value risk and tolerate ambiguity
are the United States, Great Britain, Denmark, and Sweden; among the more absolutist
countries are Peru, Chile, Argentina, Spain, and Portugal. In the latter countries innovative
thinking and risk-taking are likely to be viewed with suspicion. A member of a high-
uncertainty culture like the United States may feel a great deal of frustration in trying to
introduce new business practices in a low- uncertainty country and may, in turn, be perceived
as too impatient, daring, and imprudent.
Reliance on Context
The fifth dimension classifies countries on their degree of context dependency in constructing
and interpreting messages. Edward Hall has pointed out that in certain countries the meaning
of a message lies as much in where and how it is said as in what it is said. The Chinese
language, for example, is highly contextual. Past, present, and future are not usually
grammatically marked; when a speaker talks about going somewhere, you have to know from
context whether the speaker means that he or she already went, is about to go, or will go
tomorrow. Chinese also has many homophones, words with different meanings that sound
exactly alike. To understand a message in Chinese, you must be able to "guess" which
meaning is intended. While the Oriental countries seem to be highest in context, Greece,
Turkey and some of the Arab countries are also high-context. The Swiss, Germans, and North
Americans belong to low- context cultures. Low-context cultures value precision, specificity,
and clarity; members talk more, find highly verbal people attractive, and are relatively
insensitive to nonverbal cues. People in high-context cultures often find low-context speakers
loud and insensitive, while people in low-context cultures have trouble understanding why
high-context speakers don't say what they mean [...]
Immediacy
The final dimension we will look at is that of immediacy, which refers to the ways members
of a culture demonstrate physical and emotional closeness. In general, in high-contact cultures
(like South America, southern and eastern Europe, and the Arab countries) involvement is
shown by spatial closeness and touch. In low-contact cultures (like Asia, North America and
northern Europe) people are more comfortable at greater distances, touch less, and show
involvement in less physical ways. An Arab will find an American extremely cold and distant,
while an American may find the Arab intrusive.
All of these differences can lead to problems in communication. Members of every culture are
taught to believe that there is something inherently wrong with people who are different.
Individuals whose culture tells them to value efficiency, be clear and direct, take risks, show
initiative and question authority may have great difficulty interacting in cultures that stress
different values. They feel deeply frustrated when their good intentions are misinterpreted,
and they may judge those around them harshly. If people from every different cultures are to
interact, great care must be taken in balancing the basic dialects of relationships.

ALLIGATOR RIVER' CHARACTERS

Rosemary: Main character
Rosemary's fiancé
Geoffrey:
Sinbad:
Boat owner
Frederick: Dennis:
Rosemary's acquaintance Rosemary's second friend
Rosemary is a woman of about 21 years of age. For several months she has been engaged to a
young man named Geoffrey. The problem she faces is that between her and her fiancé there
lies a river. No ordinary river, but a deep, wide river filled with hungry alligators.
Rosemary wonders how she can cross the river. She remembers Sinbad, who has the only boat
in the area. She then approaches Sinbad, asking him to take her across. He replies, "Yes, I'll
take you across if you'll spend the night with me." Shocked at this offer, she turns to another
acquaintance, Frederick, and tells him her story. Frederick responds by saying, "Yes,
Rosemary, I understand your problem - but - it's your problem, not mine." Rosemary decides
to return to Sinbad, spends the night with him, and in the morning he takes her across the
river.
Her meeting with Geoffrey is warm. But on the evening before they are to be married,
Rosemary feels she must tell Geoffrey how she succeeded in getting across the river. Geoffrey
responds by saying, "I wouldn't marry you if you were the last woman on earth."
Finally, Rosemary turns to her friend Dennis. Dennis listens to her story and says, "Well,
Rosemary, I don't love you... but I will marry you." And that's all we know of the story.
Interpretation of Alligator River
People do not always have similar interpretations of the world around them. They perceive
and interpret behaviour in different ways.
As a result of different values, people's beliefs, behaviour and reactions are not always
similar.
No two people, even from the same culture, have exactly the same perceptions and
interpretations of what they see around them.
Many interpretations, however, are learned within a person's culture. Therefore, those who
share a common culture will probably perceive the world more similarly than those who do
not share a common culture.

CHAPTER 3
CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
Cultural Variations in Styles of Thinking'
1. What do we mean by 'cultural variations' in styles of thinking?
Is it true that people from different cultures 'think differently'? Are some styles of thinking
more suited to certain tasks and certain contexts than others?
These are complicated questions which lead to much academic argument. What does seem
clear from our experience is that students from different cultures often bring different
purposes to their thinking and learning. And these different purposes produce different results,
for example in the way the students respond to an essay topic, a problem or a controversial
piece of research. The following description of a Japanese undergraduate's essay may help to
explain what we mean by different purposes producing different results.
A Japanese student, who had studied Economics successfully for two years in Tokyo before
coming to Australia, came to seek help after he had failed all his first semester Economics
courses in our university. His English was weak and he was very shy. He explained that he
had difficulty in keeping up with the reading for his courses, so he had relied on reading his
old Japanese textbooks rather than struggling with the English language books prescribed in
the course. He also felt extremely nervous in tutorials and so never spoke. He had not
completed any of the optional assignments because he either did not have enough time or else
felt his attempts were so poor that he was ashamed to hand them in. He failed all his midyear
exams, partly because of the difficulty in understanding the complex language of the
questions. So here was a student whose attempt to adapt to Australian university study had
been a failure.
At the beginning of the second semester he came to us for help with this essay question for
Economic History:
Compare Friedman's views of economic planning in postwar Europe with those of
Samuelson.
The lecturer's purpose in setting this topic was to lead students to compare the views of
Friedman and Samuelson, that is to analyse the significant similarities and differences
between these views, and then evaluate them. The Japanese student, however, took a very
different approach. He began by describing, in detail, the family background and personal life
of Friedman up to the time he published his economic analysis of postwar Europe. The points
of this analysis were summarized briefly, without comment. Exactly the same information
was given about Samuelson. And there the essay ended.

This essay would probably be criticized by an Australian lecturer in these terms: "What is the
relevance of all this information?"; "You have not made any attempt to analyse or compare
the two approaches'; 'What is your conclusion about the relative merits of each man's views?';
'What evidence have you found to support either set of views?'. And the lecturer might
dismiss this student as unpromising because there were no signs in the essay that he could do
more than summarize information no sign, in short, of critical thinking.
When we discussed this essay draft, however, it became clear that the student had very
deliberately organized his thinking and writing according to the way he had been trained to
write essays in Japan. His aim in writing about Friedman and Samuelson was not to point out
the strengths and weaknesses of their economic thinking (critical analysis). Rather, his
purpose was to create for the reader a harmonious understanding of the reasons why two
eminent economists could reach conflicting judgements on economic planning. By describing
the difference in their backgrounds, he was implicitly explaining how these conflicting
viewpoints developed. So his 'Japanese' purpose was very different from the 'Australian'
purpose intended by the lecturer. The form of the essay was also different, as it lacked any
conclusion which might have summarized the main points made in the body of the essay. In
Japan, the student explained, he would not be expected to put forward his own critical
evaluation of a controversy between eminent scholars. So once again the reason for this
difference in the essay was not incompetence but a difference in cultural style. It would not be
correct, he had been taught, to write a conclusion which tells the reader what he should think;
that would be bad manners - a student should not impose his own views on his lecturer.
This student, therefore, was writing his essay according to a clear academic style appropriate
within his own Japanese culture. Yet an Australian lecturer, judging the essay in terms of his
own cultural style, would not find it acceptable. So the student had to learn to adjust his
purpose and to adapt the structure of his essay to meet the expectations of his lecturer. Once
he was able to see that the problem was not a matter of English or of knowledge about the two
economists but of the way in which he was approaching the whole essay task, then he was
able to make the necessary shifts without any great difficulty. And by the end of the year this
student was regularly receiving Credit grades for his essays. His written English was still
often incorrect but one of his lecturers commented: 'He is a promising student because he
shows he can think clearly, even though he still has problems with formal English'. So this
Japanese student had now made a successful shift to the style of 'thinking' required by his
Australian lecturers. He had made the crucial adjustment.
2. Cultural attitudes to learning
As we can see from the case of our Japanese student, most students think and study and write
in the way they have been trained at school and university. Each country has its own traditions
not only about what a student must learn but also how he should learn. In some countries
students are not encouraged to ask questions; in other countries they are expected to question
both their teachers and the materials they are learning. In some countries the teacher or
lecturer provides all the information which the students must learn; in others students are
expected to find most of their material independently, by reading or by their own experiments
and research. When a student trained in one cultural tradition moves, as you are planning to
move, to study in another country, a different style of learning is often necessary.
All of the characteristics presented in this diagram can be found in all education systems and
in all cultures. Some learning strategies, however, are given more importance than others
according to the context in which they occur. It is the context that determines which learning
strategy is preferred. We can see, for example, how this applies to different levels of
schooling in the Australian education system. In primary and secondary school, to a large
extent, students learn by memorizing information, solving problems and following procedures
set by the teacher. We have called this the reproductive approach to learning. The move to
tertiary education, in particular to university education, involves an important shift to a new
approach to learning - the analytical approach. In this context students are required not simply
to memorize but to question and think critically about the knowledge that is presented to
them. And, gradually, university students are encouraged to move on to the third approach: to
speculate and to develop independent research, which is the purpose of postgraduate and
advanced studies.
Of course these learning styles are never totally separate at any stage: in school the more
senior students will probably be asked to think critically as well as to memorize, to do some
independent reading as well as copy teachers' notes from the board. And at university,
particularly in science and mathematics, there will be times when students must learn facts
and formulae by heart, as well as developing their critical judgement by analysing,
questioning and evaluating the information and results they are working
on.
Are there other contexts - apart from the level of education in which certain learning strategies
are preferred over others? Do some cultures, for example, tend to value questioning and
criticizing more highly than others? Are there cultures in which the emphasis in education
given to preserving traditional knowledge. (the conserving attitude) is very much greater than
that given to testing and questioning that knowledge (the extending attitude)? And if so, what
difficulties face the student who moves from one culture to another?
Consider these comments by three Asian students who found the Australian university system
of teaching and learning very different from their previous experience:
Studies: generally, many of us are trained in a system where you don't contribute much to
class discussions, some even hesitated to ask questions from lecturers. One must do it
properly, i.e. fully conscious and forever calculating to ask questions or not. Here you are
encouraged to ask anything that bothers you. This drawback is related to our culture of respect
to others, especially the elderly and the better qualified - but it inhibits the fullest development
of oneself. In my country there is no `openness' of discussion and learning. (Singapore
undergraduate)
Also in Japanese culture (and education) the emphasis on training seems to be on intuition
rather than logical construction of argument. This made it much harder for me to explain what
I want to say in essays or in tutorials.
(Japanese MA student)
One problem was getting used to the system where a student is ex- pected to find out for
her/himself the requirements and facilities of the University. This contrasts with the system at
home whereby a person, generally the lecturer/supervisor, is responsible to the needs of the
student
Also logical approaches are different. For example, in order to answer a question by a straight
yes/no, there is a tendency to go around the point (circumlocution) which probably stems
from the influence of the home language.
(Indian PhD student)
Another way of understanding the problems a student from another culture may face in
moving to a Western university system is to consider the case of an Indonesian postgraduate
student who was writing her thesis on Indonesian literature. Her first attempt at writing the
opening chapters of her thesis was severely criticized by her supervisor because it was merely
descriptive'. In the first chapter the student had recounted the personal life of the author she
was studying. Her next chapter consisted of a detailed summary, with long quotations, of a
short story he had written. The next chapter was a summary of a novel, and so on. Her
supervisor complained: "This work is not up to the level of senior high school students. It is
disastrous for a student at postgraduate level.' Yet, as the student explained, her approach to
literary criticism was exactly the style used in her own country and the tradition in which she
had been trained. The job of the literary critic, she explained, is to make the life and works of
an author available and understandable to a wider public; the way to do this is to summarize
the author's writings.
Once this student began to read critical articles written by Western literary critics, she could
recognize that her approach must change. Gradually she developed the capacity-and the
courage-to question, to analyse and to develop critical views about the works of her author.
And her thesis was successful. Looking back on this slow process of change she commented:
'Now I am beginning to see what I must do. I am learning how to ask questions. And which
questions to ask. Before I didn't even know there were any questions at all, did I?'
3. Cultural influences on styles of writing and presenting ideas
So there do seem to be ways of approaching knowledge and study which are given more
emphasis in some cultures than in others, and in some subjects, or disciplines, than in others.
There seem also to be distinctive styles of writing and organizing ideas which reflect these
differences.
Robert Kaplan, an American, drew attention to 'the cultural differences in the nature of
rhetoric" based on his analysis of the written work of overseas students studying in his Los
Angeles university. He argues that different cultures produce distinctive approaches to
thinking and writing, just as they each have a distinctive language. He suggests that it is a
fallacy to assume that 'because a student can write an adequate essay in his native language he
can necessarily write an adequate essay in a second language'. Briefly, he supports his view
by analysis of the students' writing. He claims that there are at least five distinct patterns for
structuring an 'expository' paragraph - a paragraph that is developing ideas rather than telling
a story. Within Western cultures, for example, he distinguishes the English pattern which he
calls linear, i.e. moving directly from the central idea to explanations and examples, from
Romance and Russian patterns which permit some movement away from the central idea. In
the English pattern such divergence would break the rules of relevance. Kaplan also identifies
a Semitic pattern, covering the Arabic and related cultural traditions, which emphasizes the
development of an idea through parallelism: a statement is made and then repeated with a
slight variation which adds to or reflects or contradicts the original meaning. For example,
both the Bible and the Koran contain passages of highly poetic parallelism:
If you call them to the right path, they will not hear you. You find them looking towards you,
but they cannot see you.
But I, as a deaf man, heard not, and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his month. Thus I
was a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs.
The fifth pattern which Kaplan identifies is a common Oriental pattern. He calls this 'an
approach by indirection'. The sentences circle round the topic, often defining something in
terms of what it is not, and avoid any explicit judgement or conclusions. Kaplan's analysis is
interesting, even though you may not agree totally with his patterns and explanations.
Certainly his suggestion of the importance of strict relevance in English writing is supported
in the following case of a Thai postgraduate writing a thesis about population changes in
northern Thailand. The first chapter of this thesis covered a general summary of the
geography, history and culture of Thailand. The second chapter covered the same features, in
more detail, of northern Thailand. In the third chapter, after fifty pages of this general
introduction, the student began to provide information about population patterns. His
Australian supervisor crossed out the whole first two chapters because they were 'not relevant'
and suggested the student should have begun with his material in chapter three. His topic, the
supervisor said, was the changing population in northern Thailand. Material to do with the
geography, history and culture of Thailand, or even northern Thailand, would only be relevant
if it explained significant points in the population pattern, and should only be introduced into
the thesis when the data required explanation. Yet to the Thai student this direct 'English'
approach seemed too blunt. It went against all his training in which a gradual approach to the
central issues was preferred.
Although Kaplan was writing about differences in writing styles which arise from differences
in national cultures, it is also true that each academic discipline is, to some extent, a 'sub-
culture' in itself. Even in the 'international' languages of mathematics and science, there are
significant differences within the branches of these disciplines, not just in the content of what
is being studied but also in the acceptable ways of presenting that content in writing. For
example, there are standard models for writing papers and reports in Chemistry and in
Engineering, but they are different. And within each discipline there will be different criteria
for deciding what is relevant; for example, what must be summarized in the Introduction and
what can be included merely by a reference to previously published research. In both cases
the stylistic aim will be brevity and clarity; but the way in which the material is presented, the
use of statistics, of formulae, of graphic and illustrative material will vary, as a glance at
journals in these two disciplines shows. In the Social Sciences and Humanities the differences
between disciplines are even more marked.
So a student who is studying more than one discipline, maybe a first year student enrolled in
courses in Zoology, Psychology, History and Sociology, must learn the styles acceptable to
each of these four sub-cultures. The problem of coping with a range of disciplines is discussed
in this comment by a Bangladesh undergraduate:
I'd like to draw the reader's attention to one particular point: the reason for my fruitful
progress can be mainly due to the fact I have devoted my three years of study to one particular
subject, i.e. Biology. I would think that people who are doing, say, a combined Economics
and Agriculture course, or Forestry and Computing, etc. would have to encounter much more
problems than I have because then they'd have to be reading/writing in two dimensions
throughout their study period, as I gather there are ways of writing a Computing assignment
that are not particularly suitable in writing a Forestry field report.
If we return, therefore, to the first question asked at the beginning of this chapter - is it true
that people from different cultures 'think differently"? - then the answer appears to be: 'Yes, in
many cases they do'. And all students, even if they come from the same culture, must learn to
'think differently' in the different disciplines they choose to study. So it is essential for you to
learn to be flexible in your style of thinking and writing so you can select the style which is
most appropriate for each task you have to do.
Summary
In this chapter we have looked at cultural variations in styles of thinking which may interfere
with study in a foreign institution. We have also examined the influence of different cultures
on the ways in which students learn and the styles they use for presenting their ideas. For
many Asian students, successful study abroad involves the need to develop a more analytical
and critical approach to learning. Questions:
1. For two of the subjects which you are presently studying, make a list of the things you have
been required to do in the past week in each subject. Include activities which have taken place
both inside the classroom and in your own study time. (If you are studying Chemistry, for
example, your list might include such things as: writing up a description of an experiment,
summarizing a section of your textbook, taking notes from the board or your teacher's
dictation, memorizing atomic weights, calculating chemical equations, learning formulae for a
test, lab work, and so on. Try to make your list as complete as possible.)

FURTHER READING'
The indirectness of the Vietnamese people is also very noticeable in their written
communication, especially in English language expositions composed by Vietnamese college
students of English.
If a Vietnamese student is trying to structure an expository paragraph, he will start off by
outlining the general concept, probably in terms which will hopefully catch his reader's
attention. This may involve using certain "concept" words or "sign-post" phrases which will
convey to the reader not only the subject matter which he proposes to explore, but also the
underlying opinion which he wishes to state. For example, if he was writing about the quality
of a good professor, he might start by using one of the following sign-post phrases:
"indispensable figure"; "engineer of the soul", "great responsibility"; "noble career": etc. By
using such sign-post phrases, he is not only stating a general description of the qualities, but
also signalling to the audience what his attitude to the topic is. The sign-post words have
obvious connotations. In effect he is preparing the reader for both what he is going to say
next, and how he is going to say it.
Here are some introductory sentences composed by the top third year students of Danang
Foreign Languages Teachers' College in the academic year 1988-1989:
- "Professors are indispensable figures at colleges and universities" (Nguyen Thi Quynh Hoa)
- "A professor is an engineer of the soul" (Tran Thi Thu Thuy)
- "Teachers have great responsibility for their students". (Nguyen Thi Hong Hoa) - "Teaching
is always a noble career in our society" (Le Ngoc Bich).
After preparing his audience thus, the Vietnamese writer may use one of several ways of
explaining what he wants. He may use a list of parallel qualities; he may give a more detailed
general explanation; he may mention the qualities from different angles. The one thing he will
seldom do is to undertake a direct, logical sequential description. It's all very different from
English where students are given the practical guide to simply say precisely what they want to
say, without preambles. An- American student started his essay on the same topic (The
qualities of a good professor) as follows: "There are several things to be said about the
intellectual capacity of a good professor". Even a top fifth-year student at Danang Foreign
Languages Teachers' College in 1990 preferred an indirect approach in developing the
introduction to her graduation paper. She wrote a sixty three-page research paper on the
Usage of English Discourse Markers under the supervision of two lecturers an Australian and
a Vietnamese. The first chapter of the paper covered the theoretical preliminaries; the second
chapter covered the description of the topic; and the third chapter covered the definition. In
the fourth chapter, after forty pages of the theoretical problems the research writer began to
provide concrete examples of the topic "The usage of discourse markers". ThenAustralian
supervisor crossed out the whole first three chapters and suggested the writer begin with the
material in chapter four. But the Vietnamese supervisor, a teacher of writing English, was
aware of the common Vietnamese 'pattern' and offered a more reasonable solution: to keep the
contents of the original paper but give them a more suitable title - "A Brief Survey of English
Discourse Markers".
The Vietnamese process of communication is possibly more similar to Japanese, Chinese or
Korean than to the English process.
If a Japanese person is structuring an expository paragraph explaining why gods which are
imported into Japan are so expensive, he might start by using the "concept" or "sign-post"
words "seiji no mondai desu" or "it is a political problem". In effect he is preparing everybody
for what he is going to say and how he is going to say it.
The Chinese and Koreans also share this process of communication. You can see this by the
way they read a newspaper. When reading a newspaper, the average Chinese, Korean or
Japanese will, of course, not read every sentence. He will scan the page diagonally from top to
bottom, and his eyes will pick out the characters which convey the meaning (and the attitudes
of the writer). For his reason, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese character words, even nouns and
verbs, often have an attitudinal nuance as well as a conceptual meaning. This is a
characteristic in which the Vietnamese language is very rich. Professor Do Huu Chau of
Hanoi National University has stated: "Vietnamese words are already endowed with a
potential capacity for abstraction and generalization."
In contrast to Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, or Japanese, English speaking writers usually use
a linear sequence. That is, they begin a paragraph with a general statement of its content and
then develop the statement with a series of relevant illustrations (or else they may use the
reverse sequence). In either case, however, their flow of ideas occurs in a straight line from
the first sentence to the last senience. By doing so, they are only rarely digressive.
So, a different form of communication is evident in the distinctive and contrasting styles of
writing by the Vietnamese and the native English-speakers. Are there any cultural bases for
these differences?

CHAPTER 4
CULTURE AND VERBAL COMMUNICATION
Verbal Communication: The Way People Speak! "To know another's language and not his
culture is a very good way to make a fluent fool of one's self."
A. Cultures influence communication styles. Although this point may seem obvious, cultural
styles can and do create misunderstandings in conversations among people from different
cultures.
B. For example, consider the following conversation between an Italian and an American. The
Italian made a strong political statement with which he knew his American friend would
disagree. The Italian wanted to involve the American in a lively discussion. The American,
rather than openly disagreeing, said, "Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I accept that
your opinion is different than mine." The Italian responded, "That's all you have to say about
it?" In general, the American did not enjoy verbal conflicts over politics or anything else. The
Italian actually became angry when the American refused to get involved in the discussion.
He later explained to the American, "A conversation isn't fun unless it becomes heated!"
C. What does this example say about culture and its influence on communication? Surely,
there are many Americans who do get involved in verbal conflicts over politics, just as there
are some Italians who would not become involved. However, the above conversation
'represents types of communication patterns that are related to cultural differences.
Conversational Involvement
D. In her book You Just Don't Understand, the sociolinguistic researcher Deborah Tannen
discusses the 'notion that people from some cultures value "high involvement" conversation
patterns, while others value "high considerateness" patterns. Many people from cultures that
prefer "high involvement" styles tend to: (1) talk more; (2) interrupt more; (3) expect to be
interrupted; (4) talk more loudly at times; and (5) talk more quickly than those from cultures
favoring "high considerateness" styles. Many "high involvement" speakers enjoy arguments
and might even think that others are not interested if they are not ready to 'engage in a heated
discussion.
E. On the other hand, people from cultures that favor "high considerateness" styles tend to: (1)
speak one at a time; (2) use polite listening sounds; (3) refrain from interrupting; and (4) give
plenty of positive and respectful responses to their conversation partners. Most teachers of
English as a Second Language (ESL) in multicultural classrooms have observed that some
students become very involved in classroom conversation and discussion, whereas others tend
to participate only in a hesitant manner. The challenge for the teacher is not to allow the "high
involvement" group to 'dominate discussions!
F. The cultures that Tannen characterizes as having "high involvement" conversational styles
include Russian, Italian, Greek, Spanish, South American, Arab, and African. In general, the
various communication styles in Asian cultures (e.g., Chinese and Japanese) would be
characterized as "high considerateness." Mainstream American conversation style would also
be characterized as "high considerateness," although it differs significantly from the various
Asian patterns. There are important regional and ethnic differences in conversation styles
within the United States. Incorrect Judgments of Character
G. Americans can have problems when talking to each other because of differences. For
example, New Yorkers tend to talk faster and respond more quickly ("high involvement")
than Californians ("high considerateness"). To some New Yorkers, Californians seem slower,
less intelligent, and not as responsive. To some Californians, New Yorkers seem pushy and
domineering. The judgments that people make about regional differences within a country are
similar to those they make about people from another culture. The reactions to such
differences are not usually expressed in the following reasonable fashion: "The way she
speaks is different from my way of speaking. She must have had a different cultural
upbringing. I won't judge her according to my standards of what is an acceptable
communication style." H. Instead, people tend to make judgments such as, "She's loud, pushy,
and domineering." or "He doesn't seem interested in talking. He's very passive and
uninvolved." The people interacting are forgetting that their respective cultural styles are
responsible, in part, for their mannerisms and habits of communication. The important
differences in communication create problems of stereotyping and incorrect judgments among
members of diverse groups.
Directness and Indirectness
I. Cultural beliefs differ as to whether directness or indirectness is considered positive. In the
mainstream American culture, the ideal form of communication includes being direct rather
than indirect. ("Ideal" here means that the culture values this style, although not everyone
speaks directly.) There are several expressions in English that emphasize the importance of
being direct: "Get to the point! Don't beat around the bush! Let's get down to business!" These
sayings all indicate the importance of dealing directly with issues rather than avoiding them.
One way to determine whether a culture favors a direct or indirect style in communication is
to find out how the people in that culture express disagreement or how they say, "No." In
Japan, there are at least fifteen ways of saying, "No," without actually saying the word.
Similarly, in Japan, it would be considered rude to say directly, "I disagree with you," or
"You're wrong."
J. Many Americans believe that "honesty is the best policy," and their communication style
reflects this. Honesty and directness in communication are strongly related. It is not a surprise,
then, to find out that cultural groups misjudge each other based on different beliefs about
directness and honesty in communication.
American Male-Female Differences in Directness
K. It is impossible to say that everyone in one culture communicates similarly. Older people
often communicate according to more traditional norms than younger people, and, as
mentioned, there are regional variations in the way people speak and carry on conversations.
In addition, there are gender differences in communication styles. L. To generalize (and we do
not want to stereotype), American women have traditionally been less direct (i.e., more polite
and "soft") than men in making requests, expressing criticism, and offering opinions.
However, when talking about emotional issues and feelings, women tend to be more direct
than men. In the workplace, women have learned that in order to compete and communicate
with men, they have to be more direct when making suggestions, giving criticism, and
expressing ideas. In the mid-1980s, assertiveness training courses were designed to help
women communicate more directly, especially in the business world. In the 1990s, however,
there is more recognition of the "feminine" contribution to work relationships (e.g., nurturing,
interpersonal sensitivity, etc.). The emphasis in the workplace is on cultural diversity; women
are defined as a "cultural group." Cross-Cultural Implications

M. Americans may judge members of cultural groups that value indirectness (ie., "hesitating",
not "getting to the point," and "beating around the bush") as not being assertive enough.
However, many Americans in the business world do not realize that a large percentage of the
world's cultures value indirectness and consider it rude to insist on "getting to the point."
N. When Americans go to work in countries where indirectness is valued (e.g., in Latin
America or Asia), they may need to modify their communication style. In such cultures,
Americans should not be too direct when giving criticism, making requests, and expressing
needs and opinions. Some of the goals of indirect communication include not angering,
embarrassing, or shaming another person. North Americans working in Latin America would
benefit from understanding the cultural values of "saving face" (and not causing someone else
to "lose face"), and maintaining harmony. These two values in personal and business relations
almost always mean a more indirect style of communication. (Interestingly, although Latin
American conversation style is considered "high involvement," and many Asian styles are
considered "high considerateness," they both tend to value indirectness.) Conversation
Structures
O. Let's look at another example of how people's communication patterns differ: the way
people converse. Some foreigners have observed that when Americans hold a conversation, it
seems like they are having a Ping-Pong game. One person has the ball and then hits it to the
other side of the table. The other player hits the ball back and the game continues. If one
person doesn't return the ball, then the conversation stops. Each part of the conversation
follows this pattern: the greeting and the opening, the discussion of a topic, and the closing
and farewell. If either person talks too much, the other may become impatient and feel that the
other is monopolizing the conversation. Similarly, if one person doesn't say enough or ask
enough questions to keep the conversation moving, the conversation stops.
P. Many North Americans are impatient with culturally different conversation styles simply
because the styles are unfamiliar. For example, to many North Americans, it seems that some
Latin Americans monopolize conversations, or hold the ball too long. (Remember the "high
involvement" style mentioned.) Speaking of her co-workers from several Latin American
countries, one North American woman said, "I just can't seem to get a word in edgewise.
They seem to take such a long time to express themselves. They give you a lot of unnecessary
details." When she talked with them, she became tense, because she found it so hard to
participate. Yet she also noted that when they talked to each other, nobody seemed
uncomfortable or left out.
Q. The North American woman didn't know how to interrupt the Latin American
conversations because North American ways of listening and breaking in are very different.
She had been taught to listen politely until the other person had finished talking. (Once again,
there are gender differences; it has been observed that men tend to interrupt women more than
women interrupt men.) When the North American woman did what was "natural" or "normal"
for her (i.e., listen politely without interrupting), she was not comfortable in the conversation
with the Latin Americans. The result was that she became more 'passive in her conversations
with her co-workers. The differences between the unspoken rules of conversation of each
cultural group interfered with their on-the-job relationship.
"Ping-Pong" and "Bowling" Conversation Styles
R. An example of a conversation style that contrasts with the American "Ping-Pong"
conversation style is formal conversation among the Japanese, which has been compared to
bowling. Each participant in a Japanese conversation waits politely for a turn and knows
exactly when the time is right to speak. That is, they know their place in line. One's turn
depends on status, age, and the relationship to the other person. When it is time to take a turn,
the person bowls carefully. The others watch politely, and do not leave their places in line or
take a turn out of order. No one else speaks until the ball has reached the bowling pins.
Answers to questions are carefully thought out, rather than blurted out. In Japanese
conversation, long silences are tolerated. For Americans, even two or three seconds of silence
can become uncomfortable. Americans do not like the feeling of "pulling teeth" in
conversations. S. The American who is used to the "Ping-Pong" style of communication is
probably going to have some difficulty with someone whose conversational style is like a
bowling game. According to some Japanese, Americans ask too many questions and do not
give the other person enough time to formulate a careful answer. The American, however, is
not doing something "wrong" or insensitive on purpose. The Japanese feels that the American
is pushy and overly inquisitive because of the difference in cultural conditioning.
T. To the American, the Japanese speaker appears passive and uninterested in the
conversation. The Japanese style takes too long for the average American. The Japanese
person is not doing anything "wrong" and is not less interested in conversation. Each person
has misjudged the other because neither is familiar with their culturally different
conversational styles. (Conversely, to many people having "high involvement" styles of
communication, the American does not seem pushy and inquisitive. From their viewpoint, the
American seems more passive!) Ethnocentric Judgments
U. The judgments that people make about each other are often Ethnocentric. That is, they
interpret, judge, and behave in a way that they assume to be normal, correct, and, therefore,
universal. However, "normal" and "correct" often mean what is "normal" and "correct" in
one's own culture. When two people from different cultures communicate, they must
continually ask themselves, "Do people understand me the way someone from my own
culture would understand me?"

FURTHER READING
MISUNDERSTANDING PEOPLE FROM OTHER CULTURES
Misunderstandings Based on Language?
An obvious problem area when two people from different cultures communicate is language.
Language is not a problem for everybody; indeed the majority of the world's people are
bilingual or multilingual. In the business community, this is becoming increasingly the case,
especially as business people realise that the 'language of business is the customer's language,
whatever language that is'. In many parts of the world, people have developed the custom of
using different languages for different purposes, a practice called diglossia. For example,
Fishman (1971a), describes an office scene in Puerto Rico where the boss and his secretary,
both of whom are native Puerto Ricans of Hispanic ethnicity, discuss work related matters in
English, switch to Spanish to chat about their weekend activities, and switch back to English
to continue working. Interestingly enough, the boss initiates the language switches, and the
secretary follows his lead; we will discuss subtle displays of power like this in a later chapter.
In a diglossic or multiglossic environment, everyone is likely to have the requisite language
competency. Even so, some people, particularly foreigners who have learned the languages
outside the culture, may get into trouble about which language to use in which context.
There are many intercultural situations, however, where one person cannot speak the other's
language adequately to do the task at hand. This situation is especially common where native
speakers of English are involved, as people of British and American ethnic background are
among the largest groups of monolingual speakers in the world. It is also common in
countries with active immigration, like the United States, Canada, Australia, and increasingly
the countries of Western Europe. In these countries, immigrants may come in to work with no
knowledge of the native language at all, and pick up the language in crash courses and on the
streets.
Native speakers, when confronted with an employee, colleague, or customer who seems to
have an inadequate command of the language, tend to experience frustration, often coupled
with resentment and anger ('Why can't people who live and work here at least learn the
language? Why do I have to waste my time trying to communicate with them?). In our own
research, we have found that once native speakers of Australian English hear a foreign accent
in English, they tune out instead of listening carefully-why bother to listen, if it's so hard
(Gallois & Callan, 1986)? These feelings can lead to ineffective ways of dealing with the
problem, like speaking louder and louder. Another unfortunate result is 'foreigner talk', speech
in which language is degraded, like baby talk, supposedly to make it simpler. The following
example, taken from our own experience, illustrates foreigner talk:
COLLEAGUE A: B, could you take the report up to Mr C asap?
COLLEAGUE B: Sorry-I don't understand.
COLLEAGUE A: Could you please take the report up to Mr C ?
COLLEAGUE B: You want that I finish the report?
COLLEAGUE A: B-TO TAKE-REPORT-MR C-RIGHT AWAY!
COLLEAGUE B: Sorry?
As you can see, A's use of foreigner talk has made the request (command) to B harder to
understand than it initially was, even for a native speaker, and it initially contained jargon,
'asap' - which B could hardly be expected to know and which was not changed to plain
English until the third try. Foreigner talk may satisfy (temporarily) the anger of a native
speaker, but it does nothing to aid communication. Yet it can be very hard to resist. Indeed,
we have the habit of this kind of talk because we commonly use it with young children and
animals-and to the elderly, which is not very appropriate either. Language-based
misunderstandings can arise, of course, even when two native speakers of the same language,
but from different dialect groups (e.g., Americans and British) or from different sub-cultures
(e.g., European Americans and African Americans) or social classes, interact. There are a
plethora of examples of words and phrases that mean subtly different things, or completely
different things in one dialect and another; think of 'lift'. 'boot'. 'it went down like a bomb',
'knock up', 'cheers', 'you're right', 'no fear', in British, American, and Australian English, to
name but a few. To these problems, add all the ones that come from people in one dialect
group (or, in some cases, professional or occupational group) using words or phrases which
people in another simply do not know, such as technical terms, jargon, slang, and 'big words',
can throw the best intentioned intergroup communicators off the rails. The situation is made
worse because the people involved often believe there should be no problem-after all, they
'speak the same language', don't they?
An example of how subtle and ubiquitous this process of misunderstanding can be comes
from a recent personal experience. (In one of my jobs, I was often visiting) organisations and
giving talks there. In one of them, I received some rather sharp questioning about my work,
and I defended myself as politely and as elegantly as I could. One pointed question, from a
rather aggressive American colleague (who, as it happened, was a long time friend), seemed
well justified, and I wanted to let him know that I realised it. So I answered, 'Fair comment,
but... and went on to give my defense. He looked a bit surprised, but said nothing, so I pressed
on. Later on, he said to me, 'I didn't know how to take your remark, "fair comment". First I
thought you meant my comment was worth a 3 on a scale where 1 is poor and 5 is good. Then
I remembered you Aussies are always saying strange things, and I decided you must mean
something else.' At least he gave me the benefit of the doubt, even if it was at the expense of a
slight cultural slur.
The kinds of misunderstandings described above seem the most obvious examples of
intercultural communication breakdown, but in many ways they are the easiest to deal with-
partly because they are so obvious. In addition, if two people cannot understand each other's
language, then interpreters can be brought in (although this solution brings its own
challenges), or one or both people can learn the foreign language, if they are willing to do so.
Sometimes, of course, a language-based problem comes not from lack of knowledge or ability
to speak the other language, but from an unwillingness to do so (see Ryan & Giles, 1982, for a
detailed description of this situation). For instance, speakers of Flemish in Belgium during the
1960s and 1970s, and, more recently, speakers of French in Canada, have refused on
occasions to use or to learn the other language of the country (French and English,
respectively) as part of a cultural and political protest. We will have more to say about
language attitudes in later chapters. As we will see, such an unwillingness to accommodate
can extend beyond language to dialect, vocabulary, and style, and can be an important signal
of the relations between two cultural groups.

CHAPTER 5
CULTURE AND NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION Nonverbal Communication:
Speaking Without Words' "Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough,
what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants."
Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. Greenich, Conn.: A Fawcett Premier Book. p.39.
"He didn't look at me once. I know he's guilty. Never trust a per- son who doesn't look you in
the eye."
American Police Officer
"Americans smile at strangers. I don't know what to think of that."
Russian Engineer
"Americans seem cold. They seem to get upset when you stand close to them."
Jordanian Teacher
A. The American police officer, the Russian engineer, and the Jordanian teacher made these
comments about interactions they had with someone from a different culture. Their comments
demonstrate how people can misinterpret nonverbal communication that is culturally different
from their own. Of course, this can also happen in conversation among individuals of the
same cultural background, but it does not usually happen as often or to the same degree.
Many people think that all they really need to pay attention to in a conversation is the spoken
word. This is far from the truth!

B. Language studies traditionally emphasized verbal and written communication. Since about
the 1960s, however, researchers seriously began to consider what takes place without words
in conversations. In some instances, more nonverbal than verbal communication occurs. For
example, if you ask an obviously depressed person, "What's wrong?" and he answers,
"Nothing, I'm fine," you probably won't believe him. Or when an angry person says, "Let's
forget this subject. I don't want to talk about it anymore!" she hasn't stopped communicating.
Her silence and withdrawal continue to convey emotional meaning.
C. One study done in the United States showed that 93 percent of a message was transmitted
by the speaker's tone of voice and facial expressions. Only 7 percent of the person's attitude
was conveyed by words. Apparently, we express our emotions and attitudes more nonverbally
than verbally.
Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication
D. Nonverbal communication expresses meaning or feeling without words. 'Universal
emotions, such as happiness, fear, and sadness, are expressed in a similar nonverbal way
throughout the world. There are, however, nonverbal differences across cultures that may be a
source of confusion for foreigners. Let's look at the way people express sadness. In many
cultures, such as the Arab and Iranian cultures, people express grief openly. They 'mourn out
loud, while people from other cultures (e.g., China and Japan) are more 'subdued. In Asian
cultures, the general belief is that it is unacceptable to show emotion openly (whether sadness,
happiness, or pain).
E. Let's take another example of how cultures differ in their nonverbal expression of emotion.
Feelings of friendship exist everywhere in the world, but their expression varies. It is
acceptable in some countries for men to embrace and for women to hold hands; in other
countries, these displays of 'affection are discouraged or prohibited. F. As with verbal
communication, what is considered usual or polite behavior in one culture may be seen as
unusual or impolite in another. One culture may determine that snapping fingers to call a
waiter is appropriate, whereas another may consider this gesture rude. We are often not aware
of how gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and the use of conversational distance affect
communication. To interpret another culture's style of communication, it is necessary to study
the "silent language" of that culture.
Gestures and Body Positioning
G. Gestures are specific body movements that carry meaning. Hand motions alone can convey
many meanings: "Come here," "Go away," "It's O.K.," and "That's expensive!" are just a few
examples. The gestures for these phrases often differ across cultures. For example, beckoning
people to come with the palm up is common in the United States. This same gesture in the
Philippines, Korea, and parts of Latin America as well as other countries is considered rude.
In some countries, only an animal would be beckoned with the palm up.

H. As children, we imitate and learn to use these nonverbal movements to accompany or

replace words. When traveling to another country, foreign visitors soon learn that not all
gestures are universal. For example, the "O.K." gesture in the American culture is a symbol
for money in Japan. This same gesture is obscene in some Latin American countries. (This is
why the editors of a Brazilian newspaper enjoyed publishing a picture of a former American
president giving the "O.K." symbol with both hands!)
1. Many American business executives enjoy relaxing with their feet up on their desks. But to
show a person from Saudi Arabia or Thailand the sole of one's foot is extremely insulting,
because the foot is considered the dirtiest part of the body. Can you imagine the reaction in
Thailand when a foreign shoe company distributed an advertisement showing a pair of shoes
next to a sacred sculpture of Buddha? contexts and relationships. For instance, the smile,
which is
Facial Expressiveness
J. Facial expressions carry meaning that is determined by typically an expression of pleasure,
has many functions. A woman's smile at a police officer does not carry the same meaning as
the smile she gives to a young child. A smile may show affection, convey politeness, or
'disguise true feelings. It also is a source of confusion across cultures. For example, many
people in Russia consider smiling at strangers in public to be unusual and even 'suspicious
behavior. Yet many Americans smile freely at strangers in public places (although this is less
common in big cities). Some Russians believe that Americans smile in the wrong places;
some Americans believe that Russians don't smile enough. In Southeast Asian cultures, a
smile is frequently used to cover emotional pain or embarrassment. Vietnamese people may
tell a sad story but end the story with a smile.
K. Our faces reveal emotions and attitudes, but we should not attempt to "read" people from
another culture as we would "read" someone from our own culture. The degree of facial
expressiveness one 'exhibits varies among individuals and cultures. The fact that members of
one culture do not express their emotions as openly as do members of another does not mean
that they do not experience emotions. Rather, there are cultural restraints on the amount of
nonverbal expressiveness permitted. For example, in public and in formal situations many
Japanese do not show their emotions as freely as Americans do. More privately and with
friends, Japanese and Americans seem to show their emotions similarly. Many teachers in the
United States have a difficult time knowing whether their Japanese students understand and
enjoy their lessons. The American teacher is looking for more facial 'responsiveness than
what the Japanese student is comfortable with in the classroom situation. L. It is difficult to
generalize about Americans and facial expressiveness because of individual and ethnic
differences in the United States. People from certain ethnic backgrounds in the United States
tend to be more facially expressive than others. The key, is to try not to judge people whose
ways of showing emotion are different.

If we judge according to our own cultural norms, we may make the mistake of "reading" the
other person incorrectly.
Eye Contact
M. Eye contact is important because 'insufficient or 'excessive eye contact can create
communication barriers. In relationships, it serves to show 'intimacy, attention, and influence.
As with facial expressions, there are no specific rules governing eye behavior in the United
States, except that it is considered rude to stare, especially at strangers. In parts of the United
States, however, such as on the West Coast and in the South, it is quite common to 'glance at
strangers when passing them. For example, it is usual for two strangers walking toward each
other to make eye contact, smile, and perhaps even say, "Hi," before immediately looking
away. This type of contact doesn't mean much; it is simply a way of acknowledging another
per- son's 'presence. In general, Americans make less eye contact with strangers in big cities
than in small towns. People would be less likely to make eye contact in bus stations, for
example, than in more comfortable settings such as a university student center.
N. Patterns of eye contact are different across cultures. Some Americans feel uncomfortable
with the "gaze" that is sometimes associated with Arab or Indian communication patterns. For
Americans, this style of eye contact is too intense. Yet too little eye contact may also be
viewed negatively, because it may convey a lack of interest, inattention, or even 'mistrust. The
relationship between the lack of eye contact and mistrust in the American culture is stated
directly in the expression, "Never trust a person who doesn't look you in the eyes." In contrast,
in many other parts of the world (especially in Asian countries), a person's lack of eye contact
toward an authority figure 'signifies respect and deference.
Conversational Distance
O. Unconsciously, we all keep a comfortable distance around us when we interact with other
people. This distance has had several names over the years, including "personal space,"
"interpersonal distance," "comfort zone," and "body bubble." This space between us and
another person forms 'invisible walls that define how comfortable we feel at various distances
from other people.
P. The amount of space changes depending on the 'nature of the relationship. For example, we
are usually more comfortable standing closer to family members than to strangers. Personality
also determines the size of the area with which we are comfortable when talking to people.
'Introverts often prefer to interact with others at a greater distance than do 'extroverts. Cultural
styles are important too. A Japanese employer and employee usually stand farther apart while
talking than their American 'counterparts. Latin Americans and Arabs tend to stand closer
than Americans do when talking.

Q. For Americans, the usual distance in social conversation ranges from about an arm's length
to four feet. Less space in the American culture may be 'associated with either greater
intimacy or 'aggressive behavior. The common practice of saying, "Excuse me," for the
slightest 'accidental touching of another person reveals how uncomfortable Americans are if
people get too close. Thus, a person whose "space" has been 'intruded upon by another may
feel threatened and react defensively. In cultures where close physical contact is acceptable
and even desirable, Americans may be perceived as cold and distant.
R. Culture does not always determine the message of nonverbal communication. The
individual's personality, the context, and the relationship also influence its meaning. However,
like verbal language, nonverbal language is 'linked to a person's cultural background. People
are generally comfortable with others who have "body language" similar to their own. One
research study demonstrated that when British graduate students imitated some Arab patterns
of nonverbal behavior (making increased eye contact, smiling, and directly facing their Arab
partners), the Arabs felt that these students were more likeable and trustworthy than most of
the other British students.
S. When one person's nonverbal language matches that of another, there is increased comfort.
In nonverbal communication across cultures there are similarities and differences. Whether
we choose to emphasize the former or the latter, the "silent language" is much louder than it
first appears.